A6 Rebooted

[Natalie Severn]

If there was anything on which the impeccable reasoning of the appellate court could have been attacked we would have heard it from Bindman.

You might call it that but I saw nothing impeccable about their reasoning.On the contrary there was a lack of source explanation or detail to back up their conclusions . Running alongside all this was a lack of impartiality rather than impeccable reasoning ,and a very determined selectivity of interpretation.They simply used the controversial LCN DNA tests results to deny credibility to and overrule all other evidence that was presented.

[Graham]

Probably the time has come to draw a line under all of this, but before anyone gets their pen out, can I just ask one question:

If there ever is another appeal, what would be the grounds other than the DNA tests carried out 10-odd years ago are suspect because of the possibility of contamination? How on earth at this remove would even the canniest forensic scientist be able to demonstrate, let alone prove this? Is this, we ask, the reason why the Famous New Appeal, promised for, quote, early in the New Year i.e., early in 2011, has never happened and will never happen? Because the persons who believe that the DNA tests were fatally flawed are totally and utterly unable to prove that claim, and are well aware of it?

Frankly, I think they'd be better off trying to prove the authenticity of the Rhyl 'Alibi'.

Graham

[Dupplin Muir]

Graham wrote:

Because the persons who believe that the DNA tests were fatally flawed are totally and utterly unable to prove that claim, and are well aware of it?

As I've pointed out before, the sample was kept by the police in unknown conditions for 40 years. God knows how many people had access to it in that time. It was then tested by an organisation that is in the pocket of the police and CPS and doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word 'impartial'. This organisation refused to have any independent oversight and went out of their way to destroy the sample so that it is now impossible to gainsay their results - yet those who think the tests were flawed have to prove it...

DM

[Black Rabbit]

Graham wrote:



As I've pointed out before, the sample was kept by the police in unknown conditions for 40 years. God knows how many people had access to it in that time. It was then tested by an organisation that is in the pocket of the police and CPS and doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word 'impartial'. This organisation refused to have any independent oversight and went out of their way to destroy the sample so that it is now impossible to gainsay their results - yet those who think the tests were flawed have to prove it...

DM

Very well said Sir!!!!

[Victor]

Sorry Black Rabbit, supporting a blatantly inaccurate post demonstrates a level of intellect that many believe the jury displayed.

This...

This organisation [...] went out of their way to destroy the sample so that it is now impossible to gainsay their results - yet those who think the tests were flawed have to prove it...

...is the problem. Cripes DM! I've mentioned before that any DNA testing is destructive, and everyone was well aware of this before the testing started. Woffinden even points out that he had the DNA tests that he help instigate stopped for the express reason that there would be some of the sample left for a future round of testing.

KR,
Vic.

[jimarilyn]

Graham wrote:



As I've pointed out before, the sample was kept by the police in unknown conditions for 40 years. God knows how many people had access to it in that time. It was then tested by an organisation that is in the pocket of the police and CPS and doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word 'impartial'. This organisation refused to have any independent oversight and went out of their way to destroy the sample so that it is now impossible to gainsay their results - yet those who think the tests were flawed have to prove it...

DM

Expertly expressed !

[Black Rabbit]

Sorry Black Rabbit, supporting a blatantly inaccurate post demonstrates a level of intellect that many believe the jury displayed.
KR,
Vic.

Attacking me with personal insults is fine......I'll just remind you that there are in fact two f's in 'off'.

However, don't use it as an opportunity to take yet another cheap shot at the Jury who heard the trial at Bedford, or indeed, the good people of Bedfordshire who are not here to defend themselves.

[RonIpstone]

Dim as the Bedford jurymen undoubtedly were, there can be no doubt that in view of the DNA evidence which was subsequently to emerge they reached the right verdict. Hanratty must have struck them as a killer and those of us who were not present at the trial, which I should imagine is everyone contributing to this rebooted thread, should be slow to substitute their own verdict for that of the jury.

It is a sobering thought that if Jim had managed to postpone his desire for sleep for a little while longer and allowed MG to drive a few miles further north, then he may well have been tried by a jury which could grasp the not too difficult concept of "beyond reasonable doubt". A concept which it seems was beyond the comprehension of (or off, if you prefer) the Bedford jury empanelled for Hanratty's trial.

[Victor]

Expertly expressed !

...for anyone who wants to believe any and all conspiracy theories.

I get the idea that FSS as an independant company needs to raise it's income by performing as many tests as it can manage, and alienating the police will not achieve that. But the other side of the coin is that tampering with results will also alienate the police because of the number of unsafe convictions and that too will get them blacklisted.

Polarising the argument and concluding that FSS are "in the pocket of the police" is just misrepresenting the entire situation.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Attacking me with personal insults is fine......I'll just remind you that there are in fact two f's in 'off'.

It wasn't an attempt to insult you, it was pointing out the stupidity of jumping on the bandwagon when the position is demonstrably untenable.

I believe that the Bedfordshire jury had a great insight - as Ron points out, an insight we can never have - to discover the truth from an undoubtedly complex mountain of evidence. They have been vindicated in 2 subsequent appeals and I don't think a 3rd appeal is going to materialise.

KR,
Vic.

[Black Rabbit]

I believe that the Bedfordshire jury had a great insight - as Ron points out, an insight we can never have - to discover the truth from an undoubtedly complex mountain of evidence. KR,
Vic.

If what you say is so, then explain to me why Ron persistantly refers to the Jury and the people of Bedfordshire in such a demeaning & derogatory manner?

Don't forget also, sarcasm is very much the lowest form of wit.

[Limehouse]

Dim as the Bedford jurymen undoubtedly were, there can be no doubt that in view of the DNA evidence which was subsequently to emerge they reached the right verdict. Hanratty must have struck them as a killer and those of us who were not present at the trial, which I should imagine is everyone contributing to this rebooted thread, should be slow to substitute their own verdict for that of the jury.

It is a sobering thought that if Jim had managed to postpone his desire for sleep for a little while longer and allowed MG to drive a few miles further north, then he may well have been tried by a jury which could grasp the not too difficult concept of "beyond reasonable doubt". A concept which it seems was beyond the comprehension of (or off, if you prefer) the Bedford jury empanelled for Hanratty's trial.

Surely Ron - in your eyes - the jury could not be so dim as they drew the same conclusion as yourself - that they believed Hanratty to be guilty.

To be fair to the jury - they could only make a decision based on the evidence as it was presented to them and were undoubtedly unaware of the dirty tricks at work behind the scenes to get certain witnesses to testify.


Myself - I believe it is dim behaviour indeed to accept blindly the results of the DNA tests because such tests would not be valid in most countries in the world. Personally - I think the DNA tests were pointless because the condition of the DNA they were working with was poor - thus the need for the disputed LCN method. After the first round of tests proved inconclusive - I believe it would have been wiser to carry out no further tests.

I sincerely believe that aspects of the original evidence were fabricated and corrupted and the tragic outcome is that the debate rages on thus possibly increasing the pain that the victims of this crime - and their families - have had to endure.

[babybird67]

The jury were not only able to examine all of the evidence, and the case for and against Hanratty, but were also able to examine the witnesses in person; that cannot be underestimated. You gain a lot of insight into a person when you meet them for real, when they relate their version of events directly to you. We will never have that insight or the advantage that gave the jury over our meagre interpretation of a trial fifty odd years later.

Vic, I doubt sincerely there will be any other appeal forthcoming. There are no grounds for bringing another appeal or for wasting taxpayers money on one.

The people prolonging the victims'/descendants' pain are those that refuse to accept law, and the judgements that are made in law, beyond reasonable doubts.

[Natalie Severn]

Graham wrote:



As I've pointed out before, the sample was kept by the police in unknown conditions for 40 years. God knows how many people had access to it in that time. It was then tested by an organisation that is in the pocket of the police and CPS and doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word 'impartial'. This organisation refused to have any independent oversight and went out of their way to destroy the sample so that it is now impossible to gainsay their results - yet those who think the tests were flawed have to prove it...

DM

At the committal in November 1961 at Ampthill ,a number of people handled all the exhibits which were put out each day from cardboard boxes.The exhibits included the knickers and the trousers. The knicker piece was not cut from the knickers until December 29th 1961,the day after the trousers had had semen removed from them in the same lab.No way was the handling of the garments pristine or free of potential contamination by current standards-let alone the items being kept by the police /prosecution.
If only a very tiny sample of cloth is apparently needed for LCN DNA testing , why wasn"t a tiny piece cut from the cloth,leaving some for future testing?
Gareth Peirce has revealed,time and again, a number of forensic flaws that had kept innocent men and women in jail for years.Before hanging was abolished most of these innocent people would undoubtedly have been executed.

[Natalie Severn]

The jury were not only able to examine all of the evidence, and the case for and against Hanratty, but were also able to examine the witnesses in person; that cannot be underestimated. You gain a lot of insight into a person when you meet them for real, when they relate their version of events directly to you. We will never have that insight or the advantage that gave the jury over our meagre interpretation of a trial fifty odd years later.

Vic, I doubt sincerely there will be any other appeal forthcoming. There are no grounds for bringing another appeal or for wasting taxpayers money on one.

The people prolonging the victims'/descendants' pain are those that refuse to accept law, and the judgements that are made in law, beyond reasonable doubts.

This is not what justice is about.The case had to proven by the prosecution.In the view of many ,many thousands of people at the time the case was not proven.Having a 'hunch' about someone has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with prejudice.